Revision as of 14:40, 5 December 2012

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
   • Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
   • Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

• Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
• In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
• Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
• Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
  • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
• Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
• Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
• Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
• Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
• Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

• Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
• Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
• Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
• Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

• WP:ARCA
• WP:ARA
• WP:A/R/C&A
• WP:A/R/CL
• WP:A/R/A
• WP:A/R/CA
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by SightWatcher (talk) at 01:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 6.1: SightWatcher topic-banned
2. 7.1: TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned
3. Cla68's one-way interaction ban
4. The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Information about amendment request

I request that all four sanctions are vacated.

Statement by SightWatcher

I don't intend to edit R&I articles anymore if my topic ban is lifted. I'm requesting that it be lifted because I want to go back to being totally uninvolved in R&I, the way I had been for a year before I was sanctioned. When I was sanctioned in May 2012, my last edit that had anything to do with R&I was in May 2011. But my topic ban has often made me a focus of R&I related discussions even when I avoid them, which makes me too uncomfortable at Misplaced Pages to keep editing articles about books and movies the way I used to.

In the recent request by Cla68, AGK made a very insightful comment about the current R&I remedies: "I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration)." AGK's point can be seen from the history of requests there have been about the same issues after the review: May 17 June 10 July 8 July 25 October 22 November 10 I understand there was drama in the R&I topic before the review, but there wasn't so much of it that a new arbitration request was happening almost every month.

The goal of sanctions at Misplaced Pages is to prevent conflict, but the decision Roger Davies wrote in the review is having the opposite effect. I had already quit the R&I topic a year before I was sanctioned, so the only effect of my sanction was attracting more attention to me. The Devil's Advocate explained here how another of the bans I'm appealing also has created more drama, and he and Cla68 can speak for themselves about their own sanctions.

I still don't completely understand the basis for my topic ban, or why it needed to include an interaction ban with every other person who's edited R&I articles. My finding of fact says I was sanctioned because my involvement there was inspired by an off-wiki discussion, and both SilkTork and Roger Davies said the findings do not allege I was deliberately recruited. This needs to be pointed out because my finding of fact has often been misremembered as saying I was deliberately recruited, even though Arbcom was clear during the review they did not support this claim. SilkTork also mentioned here that it's not problematic for a person to become involved here because of an off-wiki discussion. Since my finding of fact does not allege I did anything against policy, I don't understand why I needed to be topic banned when I was no longer involved in the topic.

The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork and Elen of the Roads. I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also.

Statement by Cla68

I have never edited R & I, and I find my unilateral interaction ban incomprehensible. I would also find childish reactions to criticism, such as this one (I think I will label this the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get my way" defense) from someone who may be of adult age equally incomprehensible if I hadn't had so many years of experience dealing with Misplaced Pages's disfunctional and immature administration. Do whatever you feel is best ArbCom. If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing, personal, years-long feud between an obsessive, established Misplaced Pages editor and an obsessive, established banned editor, while allowing thin-skinned admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. ArbCom, could you please put a stop to this nonsense? How many more times do you need to be hit in the face by it? Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

It is hard to see how a further discussion on this issue would assist the encyclopedia, particularly after:

• Amendment request Initiated by The Devil's Advocate on 25 July 2012; closed around 18 September 2012.
• R&I2 Initiated by Cla68 on 22 October 2012; closed around 8 November 2012.

SightWatcher's contributions suggest that the last two edits not connected with R&I disputes were on 15 September 2012 and 25 February 2012. My view is that more emphasis should be placed on the encyclopedia, and less on R&I issues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

I have not read SightWatcher's request. I assume it was written with the aid of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and his other DeviantArt friends. How different is it from previous failed requests? Has his own content editing improved to indicate that WP:NOTHERE no longer applies?

@ Sir Fozzie: Thank you for mentioning WP:AE here. Cla68's claim that I am an "an obsessive established editor" engaged in a three year feud with Captain Occam really has very little meaning, since Captain Occam has been unable to edit wikipedia for the last twelve months. Where exactly does Cla68 claim that this feud/intergalactic war has been played out during that one year period? As Cas has written, Cla68's dismissal of the diff of Timotheus Canens shows similar problems. Cla68's remarks clearly express his own opinions, but are not supported by diffs.

As for WP:AE, if arbcom-related spaces, including the user talk pages of arbitrators, are exempt from editing restrictions, including unsubstantiated personal attacks, then I have suggested there that the phrase "anywhere on wikipedia" be amended to "anywhere on wikipedia, with the exception of arbcom-related space, including user talk pages of arbitrators". That would certainly clarify matters.

At the WP:AE request, Cla68 has in addition complained that my editing patterns on wikipedia changed recently. Temporary post-traumatic mental impairment is a known after-effect of CABG. I can only gradually return to content editing or RL research activities. I apologise if my recovery has not been rapid enough for everybody. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Risker: I commented here because Sir Fozzie mentioned my request at WP:AE in his first comment. I'm not sure which incident Risker is referring to as "trolling" or by whom. Does she mean Cla68's oblique reference to me on this page or the later diff by Cla68 on WP:AE. That diff would appear to be a personal attack, not trolling. Was Risker thinking of some other recent incident that could be described as trolling? Which user was doing the trolling? Where was the disruption? Mathsci (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Professor marginalia

Yougottabekidding!

If anybody falls for this bait (arbitrators, you're anybodies too) you're not being helpful in reducing disruption here. You're allowing yourself to be played.

It goes like this: when a decision's been made, and some user (puppets, much of the time but not not every time) pops the BigStinkbombs to unwind it all - it's not the user(s) targeted that are responsible for the "disruption" but the rest of us that chase and flap all about in these BigStinkbombs like moths to a flame.

Arbitration's ONLY function is to diagnose remedies when the "anybody can edit" needs umpires. Arbitrators are the umpires. Not that the umpire's call can never change, but it sure isn't the least bit constructive if the umpire's call can be changed for no other reason than because the injured player just won't stop making a nuisance of himself perpetually bellyaching about it. Professor marginalia (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Heim

Risker, an entire case on one block, really? I was not under the impression AE required a consensus to impose a block or sanction; that rather, it was meant to be discretionary and require consensus to overturn. I wasn't a fan of the speed on the trigger, either, but a case would be really, really overkill and would undermine the discretionary nature of sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Fut.Perf.

@Risker: The opinions about the present block of Cla68 are currently pretty evenly divided on AE. I have made it clear that I don't consider it an "enforcement" block in the strict sense, i.e. I'm not squatting on its non-overturnability. As far as I am concerned, I will lift that block as soon as I am satisfied that it's no longer needed, and I've posted one proposal at AE about an outcome that would allow me to do so. If somebody else wishes to overturn it, they can certainly do so. That's what we have block reviews for. But then they should take the responsibility for it themselves and should not expect me to do it for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

• Awaiting statements. Note that the relevant case link is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review. Note also that TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely, so I don't think we need to consider the request as to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cla68, you've linked to a post by TCanens - I don't follow, whose reaction in that post are you calling childish? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Seeing that Mathsci has raised this yet again at enforcement as a result of this case request (and the resulting admin frustration with Mathsci as a result) makes me think that we missed an opportunity to head off more issues by making the interaction ban mutual last time in the motion that was proposed. I'm neutral, towards leaning oppose to modify the other issues here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noted the unilateral block action taken by Future Perfect At Sunrise in the AE request based on this thread.. I think that this action will certainly be looked at (either in this request, or in the request for a full fledged case that is currently being mooted by Cla68). I would say FPaS's actions may not be strictly against consensus but solely on the basis that only a few folks had spoken, but I do note that FPaS's actions were unilateral and not in tune with those uninvolved administrators who had already commented on the AE request. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, folks. It seems that *none* of you is interested in editing in the area of R&I. It is also obvious to everyone that these continued requests for sanctions or variations in sanctions is doing absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee's mandate is to address disruption on Misplaced Pages, not providing due process or "fairness" to any individual editor(s). I'm thinking that we extend all topic and interaction bans in this area to indefinite, with the opportunity to appeal in six months, and that Mathsci be included in topic/interaction ban. Much as I understand that Mathsci is being trolled here, at this point his reactions to the trolling have become more disruptive to the encyclopedia than the trolling itself, and he clearly needs a break from this area. And Future Perfect at Sunrise, please lift your block on Cla68; I don't want to have to hear an entire case because you're being inflexible on a block that is clearly not supported by the consensus of admins on AE. Risker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarification request: WP:PRIVACY

Initiated by My76Strat (talk) at 01:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• My76Strat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Interior (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by your My76Strat

Pursuant a question of policy interpretation initiated by The Interior I'd like to ask the committee to interpret if it would be unacceptable to post an obituary of a recently deceased wikipedian as a form of outing?

@ Courcelles, I appreciate your comment, and the counsel within. I did consider that this request could fall contrary to the arbitration process, hoping that the function "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" might apply. It is possible that a community discussion could reach an improper consensus without any malice intent, encroaching legal ramifications beyond what a lay body would reasonably consider. It seems within the clause allowing the Committee to "interpret existing policy". Even these provisions might require the protocol of a full case, which I would understand if the mandate is clear that a clarification must be narrowly construed within the context of an existing case. I apologize to the extent I may have approached this outside of process, and will comply with any directive issued. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ A Quest For Knowledge, Your suggestion could be a work-around approach to allow an editor to post condolences to the obituary, but Risker is absolutely correct that a paramount desire is to update the biographical information included at WP:RIP, as well as the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki page. This can only be accomplished in the light of full scrutiny, and should be IMO. One way or another, it seems invariable that the Committee will be the only body sufficiently capable of providing a credible answer, IMO. My76Strat (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ The Committee, The more I think about this question, the more it seems clear that there really could only be one answer. I can't even support the notion myself. I think my sensibility was temporally impaired by emotion, or something like that, I hope, or I am afflicted with chronic brain-fart. I'd like to withdraw this request as malformed unless you prefer ill-construed. But I will leave the task of removing it to the better discretion of the Committee. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies, I agree. A significant factor of the counsel coming from this clarification, is the notion of "informed consent". This follows the insight Silk Tork elaborated on in saying; "when asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence." Further suggesting; "a guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up", acknowledging that this is a community prerogative. I am in full agreement. I am curious however, if this prerogative should be accomplished at the communities leisure, or if it is prudent for the Committee to direct a timeline? Besides a timeline, should specific points be directed for the community, to addressed? Like a protocol for soliciting informed consent. A guideline for designating which family member had the authority to speak for the entire surviving family. Perhaps even a protocol for the possibility that one member might give consent while another expresses dissent. In any regard, I am pleased that the Committee has rallied to provide this valuable insight, in such a timely fashion. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Note from Risker

I am aware of the deceased editor whose obituary is being referenced here; as a matter of fact, I nominated him for adminship, and have long known his "real world" name. I've also read the obituary, and know that there is nothing potentially harmful in it. On looking at WP:RIP, I note many of the entries link to real-world names that were not necessarily attached to the accounts during the editor's tenure at Misplaced Pages. My personal opinion is that it would be safe to link to the obituary and also to use some of the information from the obituary to flesh out the entry at WP:RIP. I'd suggest this is something better to discuss with the community as a whole, instead of asking Arbcom; there's no case to attach this to, and there are no concerns about sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The Interior

Thank you for the advice, Risker. I'm going to go ahead and add the information. I suppose it might be beneficial to ask the community if we need to add to WP:PRIVACY a clause about deceased Wikipedians, but maybe it's (hopefully) such a rare occurrence that it can be dealt with case by case. The Interior (Talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: will hold off until we here a few other opinions, but I trust Risker's assessment as they knew the editor better than I did. The Interior (Talk) 03:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

Why not simply e-mail the link to the obituary to the other interested Wikipedians? This way, the info can be shared but still preserving their privacy on Wiki. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mors Martell

If a person wishes that their real name not be disclosed in public, I see no reason to stop respecting that after they die. In those cases their obituary at Misplaced Pages could include the person's username, and a summary of their contributions. --Mors Martell (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The request is a little too close to asking ArbCom to make policy, though as in one direction this could lead to oversight being necessary if the answer went a certain way, I can see the logic in asking us. IMO, if the user didn't reveal their real name on-wiki, I wouldn't make that connection now without the family's okay, but, again, this really isn't up to ArbCom. Courcelles 02:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Courcelles, while I can certainly understand why we would wish to do such a thing, I would suggest without it being disclosed previously, or with the family's ok, I would hesitate greatly to say "there's no problem with it". SirFozzie (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a bit of time to think about it.. I would tenatively see nothing wrong with it, but I think I'd be happy if we did a RfC (not a long one, just a quick say, seven day one with a link to the usual places.. and until a decision one way or the other, I would say, "Tenative ok" with the caveat that should the decision be against it, that the identifying info be removed. SirFozzie (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• We respect users' wishes to conceal their real identity in order to prevent harassment, and will suppress edits in which the real life identity is revealed for otherwise anonymous accounts. Policy, however, is not clear on deceased users. While the user can not be harassed, their family could be. I can see a possibility that the family of an admin who had blocked trouble makers might experience harassment at a sensitive time. When asking a family permission to use the real name, consideration should be given to informing the family of possible negative interactions as a consequence. A guideline on dealing with these matters should be drawn up; and that is for the community to do. As regards the Committee's involvement in these matters. If the real life identity of a deceased user were suppressed when there was no clear indication of permission being given, I would view that as an appropriate interpretation of policy. If another user tried, after suppression, to again reveal the identity, and this became a dispute which escalated until it was before the Committee, I would support the suppression and be inclined to support sanctions against a user edit warring to reveal a real life identity without evidence that this was the wishes of the deceased user or their family. SilkTork 10:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Most of the time that I see a pseudonymous user named as deceased, it is at the behest or notice of the user's relatives or friends. Where such approval is not given, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and avoid tying the account to the real-world identity. While I think it's unlikely that the kind of harassment Silk mentions would actually happen, there's no reason to give an opening for that harm either. If it's considered important enough, I'd recommend an RfC for a line mention to be added to the policy or whatnot; as it is this doesn't seem like a clarification that we can decide as a Committee. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would also recommend that community input be sought into this; my personal thoughts are similar to SilkTork's in that the family of the deceased should give consent prior to anything being posted. Hersfold non-admin 19:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply to A Quest For Knowledge: If providing such an obituary link is determined to constitute outing, then that is not a feasible alternative and could result in more problems; any person with the email could very easily forward it on to someone else, and so on, until the point of using email is entirely defeated. Hersfold non-admin 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think this a case where the Committee have no weightier insight than anyone else in the community, so it might be worth creating an RfC in a bit (there's no rush) to gauge the community's feelings. My personal feeling would be that if (as in this case) a relative unconnected with Misplaced Pages contacts the project, then they are surely telling us (as in this case) is that 'Joe Bloe, who edited as User:Foo, has passed away.' Usernames don't die, real live people sadly do. At which point, linking to the published obituary is a courtesy, not WP:OUTING. Attaching an obit to a username assumed to be the deceased would surely be a contravention of WP:BLP, never mind OUTING. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• My take is that this is entirely a matter for the family and, absent their explicit informed consent, the username should not be associated with a real life identity.  Roger Davies 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)